Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

I like the lyrics there BRM, but I think that our congressman are the last ones who should be holding anyone accountable for anything. Ya know, "those who live in glass houses....." or "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone".... and all that gobbledygook.

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

The thing is, even if Walsh only has videos of opposing signals like from the Jets game, that doesnt mean there shouldnt be more sanctions against the Patriots. Belichick and the Pats were fined and had their first round pick removed for spying on one game, what kind of sanctions will they face if they have filmed signals from multiple games? Its got to be pretty severe if they lost a first rounder for filming just the one game.

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

If you don't use the best back in the league at the time in your game plan , then how do you expect to win anyway?
Martz should have a ring for that year but he blew it just as well.
he just helped BB win the bowl and Cheat too!!!!!!

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

Originally Posted by txramsfan

Not saying that. Ok, I get it. When Jackson fumbles, it isn't Linehan's fault. However, when Proehl fumbles, it's all Martz.

Glad I got THAT straight.

What are you talking about? He's saying we should have used Faulk more and Blames Martz for that...I thought every Rams fan in the world agreed on that point...unless I missed it he never blamed Martz for the turnovers...

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

He also put in there the miscues. Who knows what would have happened if Martz would have used Faulk more....that's mere speculation. There is no evidence that says the Rams would have done better.

However, those turnovers aren't speculation but fact. Proehl had a first down at the 50 and the Rams were moving the ball. The fumble changed the dynamics of the game. I was pointing out the fact that when Linehan's Rams fumble, it's the players fault. When Martz's Rams fumble, it's his fault for not calling the right play.

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

He also put in there the miscues. Who knows what would have happened if Martz would have used Faulk more....that's mere speculation. There is no evidence that says the Rams would have done better.

However, those turnovers aren't speculation but fact. Proehl had a first down at the 50 and the Rams were moving the ball. The fumble changed the dynamics of the game. I was pointing out the fact that when Linehan's Rams fumble, it's the players fault. When Martz's Rams fumble, it's his fault for not calling the right play.

I don't recall anyone saying that...I don't blame Linehan or Martz for any turnovers...coaches have little to no control over those things...there are enough other things to blame on both coaches

Re: Rams want Superbowl XXVI outcome overturned?

I don't recall anyone saying that...I don't blame Linehan or Martz for any turnovers...coaches have little to no control over those things...there are enough other things to blame on both coaches

I think one of his points is (and I agree) that there are 1,000 different things we could blame that loss on if we wanted to. To pin it down to one simple thing is foolish. Hey, we could find the Rams' 2001 playbook, get some film of the game, and break down every single missed assignment (blocks, tackles, etc.) and every error (fumbles, dropped passes, errant throws) made by the players that affected the outcome of the game. These things can have just as much of an impact as a play called by the coach.

Should more runs have been called against their 7-DB defense? Maybe. Like tx said, how do we know what would've happened? The Pats' defensive gameplan was to take Faulk out of the game. He was their main focus. They were mugging him all game long. If we forced the ball to him in that scenario, wouldn't we be playing right into their hand? Martz has said since then (despite being heavily criticized for not involving Faulk more) that if he could change anything about his gameplan for that game, he would've actually thrown the ball more. Maybe he was right. The bottom line is we will never know.

Anyway... all that said, here is the SI cover I mentioned a while ago of Warner taking the blatant helmet-to-helmet hit that was, of course, never called. The facemask is right on his freakin' chin! This still ticks me off.